DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1 and 2 are pending and have been examined.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: Fig. 2, ref. 200 (para. [0041] that references “200”).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In para. [0003] has "Doctors are becoming burdened ... spending their time was medical providers" where "was" should probably be "as;”
In para. [0061] has "For example, Fig. SA depicts ... " where "SA" should probably be "5A;"
In para. [0063] has "In some embodiments, a user action 887 ... (in this example, information lined to "see image ... ") where "lined" should probably be "linked."
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,205,505. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would be obvious that code is executed when presenting information.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 2 are directed to a method, is a statutory category of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified method Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis.
Claim 1 recites the limitations of:
A computer implemented method comprising:
accessing patient related records data from at least one data source;
executing code to present, to a user display device, a record dashboard that is adapted to integrate at least portions of patient medical service or condition information retrieved from or derived from the at least one data source into respective data fields,
wherein respective data are organized by at least one of time and date in one direction and by at least two of medical services, clinical data, examination findings, diagnostic tests, images, medical documents, plans, claims, and procedures used to track the patient's medical condition in another direction, related to the patient,
whereby data for the at least two of medical services, clinical data, examination findings, diagnostic tests, images, medical documents, plans, claims, and procedures related to the patient are shown in a corresponding portion of the record dashboard for tracking of changes in the patient's medical service or condition over time or date;
populating at least one of the respective data fields with medical records data corresponding to
at least two of the respective medical services, clinical data, examination findings, diagnostic tests, images, medical documents, plans, claims, and procedures from the data source;
enabling a user to access underlying patient information linked to the medical records data populated into the data fields in the medical record dashboard for the patient; and
executing code to provide, to the user display device or devices, the underlying patient medical information to a new window on the medical record dashboard without navigating away from the medical record dashboard, wherein the new window and the record dashboard are concurrently visible, and the medical record dashboard is active.
These above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as mental processes. The claim recites elements, highlighted in bold above, which covers performance of the limitation that can be concepts performed in the mind of a person or with pen and paper. A person can present by writing with pen and paper or using a generic computer, a record dashboard with medical record with patient medical service or condition information, fill in fields with data, organize data with pen and paper into columns and rows where one direction is time or date, and the other direction is at least to different data such as medical services and clinical data, populate by writing into data fields data corresponding to medical services and clinical data, and provide underlying information in a new area (window) of a document by writing in the data. See also MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C where using a generic computer was shown to be part of a mental process. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a mental process, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 is abstract (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
In that patient records are being accessed by a user, the claims are also abstract as managing personal behavior (enabling a user to access underlying patient records) and interactions between people (user is provided patient information). Therefore, the claims are also abstract under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite: computer, user display device (Claim 1). The computer hardware is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The “enabling a user to access underlying patient information linked to medical records is claimed at a high level of generality. Provide a new window without navigating away from the medical record dashboard is applied at a high level of generality and does not appear to solve a technical problem (for example, see Example 37 where the specification was about improving graphical user interface technology, and Claim 1 with the specific manner the combination of three steps provided a technical improvement over prior systems). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Steps such as accessing (receiving) are steps that are considered insignificant extra solution activity and mere instructions to apply the exception using general computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(d), II). Thus Claim 1 is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claim 2 further defines the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent Claims 1 and thus correspond to Mental Processes and Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the Claim 2 is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1 and 2 are not patent-eligible.
Examiner Request
The Applicant is requested to indicate where in the specification there is support for amendments to claims should Applicant amend. The purpose of this is to reduce potential 35 U.S.C. §112(a) or §112 1st paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended without support in the specification. The Examiner thanks the Applicant in advance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pub. No. US 2010/0114608 to Ando.
Regarding claim 1
A computer implemented method comprising:
accessing patient related records data from at least one data source;
Ando teaches:
Fig. 1, ref. 6 and electric medical record (data source)…
PNG
media_image1.png
284
308
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Example of work in concert with each other (accessing) electric medical record…
“The medical image display system 1 allows the electric medical record system which manages electric medical record data and the medical image management system which manages a series of various pieces of processing data from photographing to displaying of medical image to work in concert with each other so that the medical image display apparatus 5 displays a screen showing the electric medical record data and a screen showing the various pieces of processing data.” [0036]
executing code to present, to a user display device, a record dashboard that is adapted to integrate at least portions of patient medical service or condition information retrieved from or derived from the at least one data source into respective data fields,
Fig. 4, ref. E1 and user display device with portions of patient medical record with data into respective fields…
PNG
media_image2.png
230
348
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein respective data are organized by at least one of time and date in one direction and by at least two of medical services, clinical data, examination findings, diagnostic tests, images, medical documents, plans, claims, and procedures used to track the patient's medical condition in another direction, related to the patient, whereby data for the at least two of medical services, clinical data, examination findings, diagnostic tests, images, medical documents, plans, claims, and procedures related to the patient are shown in a corresponding portion of the record dashboard for tracking of changes in the patient's medical service or condition over time or date;
[No Patentable Weight is given to the following non-functional descriptive claim language of “wherein respective data are organized… and procedures related to the patient are shown in a corresponding portion of the record dashboard for tracking of changes in the patient's medical service or condition over time or date;” as this is display data without any functionality between a user and the display.]
[No Patentable Weight is given to intended use language of “for tracking of changes…” as tracking never happens]
Fig. 4, ref. E1 teaches date in one direction (column) and Modality (diagnostic tests) and Image Inspection Status (images) in another direction (row), and where “EXAMINATION DATE” AND “REPORT STATUS” are for multiple dates, therefore, tracking over time…
PNG
media_image3.png
140
318
media_image3.png
Greyscale
See Time below.
populating at least one of the respective data fields with medical records data corresponding to
at least two of the respective
medical services, clinical data, examination findings, diagnostic tests, images, medical documents, plans, claims, and procedures from the data source;
Fig. 4, ref. E1 teaches populating data fields with diagnostic tests and images.
enabling a user to access underlying patient information linked to the medical records data populated into the data fields in the medical record dashboard for the patient; and
Display image data when patient examination list region is selected (enabling user to access)…
“The interpretation image screen G3 is a screen to be displayed when "IMAGE EXISTS" of the image inspection status with respect to any of the examinations in the examination list displayed in the patient examination list region E1 is selected.” [0062]
executing code to provide, to the user display device or devices, the underlying patient medical information to a new window on the medical record dashboard without navigating away from the medical record dashboard, wherein the new window and the record dashboard are concurrently visible, and the medical record dashboard is active.
Fig. 4, ref. G3 teaches new window without navigating away from the medical record…
PNG
media_image4.png
344
364
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Time
Ando teaches examination date in Fig. 4, ref. E1. They do not teach time in the figure.
However, Ando also teaches time in Fig. 4, ref. G2 and date with time…
PNG
media_image5.png
172
362
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The combined references teach date and time. They do not explicitly teach
time. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that time is available and could be combined with date information based on teachings of Ando (Fig. 4, ref. G2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Ando with the knowledge available to such an artisan that various data could be provided with medical information. This would have been known work in the field of endeavor prompting variations of it in the same field based on use of medical data and would provide predictable results.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pub. No. US 2010/0114608 to Ando in view of Pub. No. US 2011/0258001 to Green, III et al.
Regarding claim 2
The method of claim 1, wherein the claims data is accessed to obtain a status of claims corresponding to the information displayed for elements comprising medical services and procedures performed, wherein the method further comprises:
generating one or more respective indicators by transforming the accessed claims data to identify a corresponding status of the claims; and
[No Patentable Weight is given to alternative claim language that may not happen. Claims data may never be accessed as it is not required. Therefore, generating indicators to identify status of claims may never happen.]
See Claim below.
displaying the one or more respective indicators on the record dashboard.
[No Patentable Weight is given to the following non-functional descriptive claim language of “one or more respective indicators on the record dashboard” as this is display data without any functionality between a user and the display.]
See Claim below.
Claim
Ando teaches dashboard. They do not teach claim data and claim status.
Green, III et al. also in the business of displaying medical record information teaches:
Patient information with diagnosis (examination findings) and claims…
“An integrated medical software system with location-driven bill coding is disclosed. The system comprises an information component that automatically retrieves payment method data and demographic data for a patient and location data for a healthcare provider; a clinical component that captures at least one of a diagnosis code, a procedure code, and an evaluation and management (E&M) code as at least one of a clinician and a staff member at the healthcare provider inputs clinical data for the patient into the an electronic document during an encounter with the patient; a mapping component that automatically associates a billing code with the at least one of a pathology code, a procedural code, and an E&M code and assigns a service cost to the billing code based on a pre-defined fee schedule, said pre-defined fee schedule being automatically chosen based on the location data for the healthcare provider; and a service detail entry component that uses the payment method data and the demographic data for the patient and the service cost to automatically generate at least one of a bill, a claim, and a statement for the patient.” (Abstarct)
Fig. 12, and Account information including claims…
PNG
media_image6.png
376
706
media_image6.png
Greyscale
“Additionally, users can search for all applicable diagnosis and procedure codes and arrange the format of a customized electronic superbill specific to the needs of the practice. When necessary, assignment of insurance coverage at the individual charge level is supported for tracking of charges within a single visit that are attached to different insurance coverage. Support for tracking multiple pre-certification numbers by insurance plan is included, and all patient demographic and insurance information is accessible for real-time edits during charge entry.” [0121]
Allowed Amount (indicator of status of the claim)…
Fig. 14 teaches procedure code and “Allowed Amount” (indicator of status of the claim)…
PNG
media_image7.png
144
866
media_image7.png
Greyscale
“In addition, contracts and fee schedules can be set up and maintained with minimal effort, as shown in FIG. 14. Medicare part B fee schedules come pre-loaded with the system and are annually updated, enabling users to simply select the geographic region for their practice. The claim amounts are matched to the allowable amount of the contract to automatically establish the correct allowed amounts for procedures. A/R management gives users several methods to establish a variety of fee schedules: percentage of charge, allowed amount, percentage of another fee schedule (including Medicare), etc., and to indicate which of these fee schedules should be rounded and/or capitated. Contract fee schedules are integrated into the system's charge posting and payment entry functions.” [0129]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include in the method and system of Ando the ability to include claim indicators as taught by Green, III et al. since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Further motivation is provided by Green, III et al. who teaches the financial benefits of providing claim information with a system with patient record information.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following prior art teaches at least accessing medical records:
US-20250232855-A1; US-20120109686-A1; US-20070185390-A1; US-20020198742-A1; US-20030195775-A1; US-20070016441-A1; US-20070016442-A1; US-20080133274-A1; US-20110225114-A1; US-20120215551-A1; US-20120215557-A1; US-20120215558-A1; US-20120215559-A1; US-20130035961-A1; US-20130297348-A1; US-20110270630-A1; US-20130191161-A1; US-20050234903-A1; US-8666774-B1; US-8666773-B1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH BARTLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5230. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30 - 4:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SHAHID MERCHANT can be reached at (571) 270-1360. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KENNETH BARTLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684